A Lure

Right this instant I am trying to organize, frame, package, wrap up an idea that I think is interesting in a way that will get you to also think that it’s interesting.

This same kind of ‘wrapping’ or ‘baiting’ happens every time any of us wants to attach and therefore, if successful, receive value from somebody else for some thing or some idea or some service. Visual arts are a type of ‘wrapping.’ The artist is assigning value to some construct by the way he wraps or packages or conforms/reforms it. He hopes that you, the viewer, will agree to that value. Literature; nonfiction, fiction, poetry — is especially value laden. The attached or implied value may be purely benign or it may be extraordinarily toxic and viral.

Of course, wrapping or bait is all around us in the form of marketing such as commercials and packaging. For example the book covers in recent posts by Ray Girvan, Dr. C, and Felix Grant.

Confidence games or confidence tricks (as Wikipedia calls them) are a form of ‘wrapping.’ You may complain that it’s different in that it’s a lie; the con man cheats. Maybe. And maybe that’s because (I hope) you are not a con man yourself. To the con man, he has given you what you wanted. That you regret your exchange is not his problem. Here is a bit from a conversation with James Swain, author of Loaded Dice:

Q: What does it take to be a successful con man, besides good luck? Who is the most successful con man you’ve personally known?

A: I think I could write a book answering your question. But here’s a short version. Luck rarely comes into a play with a con. Being a con man requires a thorough understanding of human nature and human greed. W. C. Fields’s expression “You can’t cheat an honest man” is at the core of any good con. And a con man must be willing to spend long hours (sometimes weeks or even months) to execute a successful con. Planning is everything.

If you ignore the negative words (greed, cheat, con man), that could be a description of an artist at work.

Q: It seems as though a lot of con artists really do believe they are ethically entitled to whatever they can get away with.

A: You are one hundred percent correct. Con artists and hustlers do believe they are entitled to whatever they can steal. They also believe that everyone cheats in one way or another. And, if you’re one of those rare individuals who doesn’t cheat, then you’re a sucker, and deserve whatever happens to you.

I am (as usual) being deliberately provocative to make you think. The other guy is the con artist and the hustler. We are sincere and virtuous in what we assign value to and try to impress upon or get others to ‘pay’ us for (where such ‘payment’ is not necessarily money; it could be respect or loyalty and so forth).

Here is a description of what’s bad about cons, taken from Fraud Victim Advice/Assistance for Consumer Scams and Investment Frauds:

Ethical views reflect beliefs about right and wrong and define broad standards of behavior which help shape the rules we use to live together in society. Fairness and freedom are two ethical views that are violated by fraud in an environment of dishonesty, greed and laziness …

… Fraud deceives a person by unfairly misrepresenting truth. It also restricts the freedom of its victims as it robs them of their money.

That  may seem perfectly clear to you, but think about how ambiguous the whole thing is. The sentence, ” Fairness and freedom are two ethical views that are violated by fraud in an environment of dishonesty, greed and laziness …” is circular. And  “unfairly misrepresenting the truth”?  Or “restricts the freedom of its victims”? Where? When?

Somebody is selling and somebody is buying value. The variations are in the wrapping and the nature of the lure. (To repeat, I am being deliberately provocative.)

Examples of toxic messages in beautiful wrappers abound in the history of politics and religion. I won’t go near any of those, but I will give you an example of what I think is a beautifully ‘wrapped’  but to my mind, poisonous, message aimed at men. It’s called, What Is a Man?: Read this. Thumbtack it to your desk. Thank us later. It’s by Tom Chiarella in Esquire (Apr 6, 2009):

A man carries cash. A man looks out for those around him — woman, friend, stranger. A man can cook eggs. A man can always find something good to watch on television. A man makes things — a rock wall, a table, the tuition money. Or he rebuilds — engines, watches, fortunes. He passes along expertise, one man to the next. Know-how survives him. This is immortality. A man can speak to dogs. A man fantasizes that kung fu lives deep inside him somewhere. A man knows how to sneak a look at cleavage and doesn’t care if he gets busted once in a while. A man is good at his job. Not his work, not his avocation, not his hobby. Not his career. His job. It doesn’t matter what his job is, because if a man doesn’t like his job, he gets a new one.

A man can look you up and down and figure some things out. Before you say a word, he makes you. From your suitcase, from your watch, from your posture. A man infers.

A man owns up. That’s why Mark McGwire is not a man. A man grasps his mistakes. He lays claim to who he is, and what he was, whether he likes them or not.

 [... ] A man doesn’t point out that he did the dishes.

A man looks out for children. Makes them stand behind him.

A man knows how to bust balls.

A man has had liquor enough in his life that he can order a drink without sounding breathless, clueless, or obtuse. When he doesn’t want to think, he orders bourbon or something on tap.

Never the sauvignon blanc.

A man welcomes the coming of age. It frees him. It allows him to assume the upper hand and teaches him when to step aside.

Maybe he never has, and maybe he never will, but a man figures he can knock someone, somewhere, on his ass.

He does not rely on rationalizations or explanations. He doesn’t winnow, winnow, winnow until truths can be humbly categorized, or intellectualized, until behavior can be written off with an explanation. He doesn’t see himself lost in some great maw of humanity, some grand sweep. That’s the liberal thread; it’s why men won’t line up as liberals.

[ ... ] A man resists formulations, questions belief, embraces ambiguity without making a fetish out of it. A man revisits his beliefs. Continually. That’s why men won’t forever line up with conservatives, either.

[ ... ] A man listens, and that’s how he argues. He crafts opinions. He can pound the table, take the floor. It’s not that he must. It’s that he can.

A man is comfortable being alone. Loves being alone, actually. He sleeps.

Or he stands watch. He interrupts trouble. This is the state policeman. This is the poet. Men, both of them.

A man loves driving alone most of all.

Style — a man has that. No matter how eccentric that style is, it is uncontrived. It’s a set of rules.

He understands the basic mechanics of the planet. Or he can close one eye, look up at the sun, and tell you what time of day it is. Or where north is. He can tell you where you might find something to eat or where the fish run. He understands electricity or the internal-combustion engine, the mechanics of flight or how to figure a pitcher’s ERA.

A man does not know everything. He doesn’t try. He likes what other men know.

A man can tell you he was wrong. That he did wrong. That he planned to. He can tell you when he is lost. He can apologize, even if sometimes it’s just to put an end to the bickering.

I suspect many men will take that message, hook, line and sinker. Even those who don’t will almost certainly have felt it’s allure. Even though I hate the message, I can admire its craft.

There is more to that essay if you haven’t had enough (it makes me argue at my monitor). [ link ]

=========================================

Completely and totally unrelated to the above, I want to wish Jim Putnam a happy 70th Birthday today. Best wishes!

-Julie

http://www.unrealnature.com/